Introduction: Portal assessment is one of major issues in developing services to users. This article is going to suggest a checklist in order to evaluate hospital portals.Methods: In this study library research method is used to study literature and evaluation checklists. In fact specialist viewpoints are used to get reliability of the assessment tool. Afterwards AHP method is used to valuation criteria and components.Results: In this study 14 criteria and 77 components were identified and proposed. The criteria and their score were gained as follow: contact information (with 5 score); features of portal pages (with 5 score); pages design (with 4 score); updating pages (with 5 score); Information, access roads (with 5 score); Public services (with 20 score); Services to Patients (with 3 score); Patient data (with 7 score); Research and education (with 3 score); Public relationship (with 7 score); Technical features of screens (with 4 score); Telemedicine (with 15 score); Pharmaceutical Services (with 3 score); Financial Services (with 15 score).Conclusion: According to finding a checklist for assessment of hospital portals is suggested.

Background: Use of checklist in evaluation of trauma patients has been a critical component of improving the care process and reducing medical errors and increasing patient's quality of life. We aim to assess the impact of the modified World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist (WHO TCC) on the management of pain, complications, mortality and patient satisfaction in trauma patients. Methods: This was a randomized control trial (RTC). Trauma patients referred to the trauma center and met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned into three study groups. Group 1 were patients who received trauma care without using the WHO checklist, and only by the standard of care. Group 2 were patients who received trauma care according to the WHO's checklist, and group 3 were patients received trauma care according to the WHO's modified checklist. We used independent t-test and chi-square tests to assess the association between the study variables with checklist groups. The significance level of tests was set for p-value less than 0. 05. Results: We observed patients’ level of pain, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Criterion (GCS) and patient satisfaction significantly improved across the checklist groups, but more so in the modified checklist group (P less than 0. 001). Similarly, findings reveal significant relationships between all clinical characteristics of the patients and checklist groups, except for a CT Scan of the spinal cord. We were unable to establish any significant associations between the checklist groups and the majority of the selected trauma care process measures, except for missed injury (p = 0. 001). Conclusions: Both the WHO TCC and the WHO modified checklist, in the initial assessment and during the treatment and care processes, enhance patients’ clinical outcomes. However, patients in the modified checklist compared to WHO TCC reported a higher level of satisfaction. Implications and future directions are discussed.

The concept of interactional competence and its assessment as a complex language ability has long been a concern for research. A more recent approach to testing this construct has called for an investigation into the commonly-used concept of washback which refers to the effect of testing on teaching and learning.  This study aimed to investigate the washback effect of an interactional competence checklist on EFL teaching and learning. The study combined qualitative and quantitative research methods within a comparative design between an experimental and a control group of 27 advanced English learners. Data was collected through students’ oral performance, teacher and student surveys, the IC checklist, and classroom observations. The data were analyzed using mixed ANOVA and content analysis using coding schemes and themes to compare the scores obtained before and after the treatment. The study revealed a statistically significant difference in learners’ interactive oral performance before and after the implementation of the checklist. Results indicated positive washback in aspects including familiarity with the checklist, test quality, interpretation and use, motivation, professional development, and learners’ studying habits. The implications for the classroom are that language program administrators and curriculum designers can introduce modifications in developing materials that foreground a focus on interactional competence.